Industry representatives of the State have voiced their objection against the proposed surcharge on turnover of the companies using bio-resources as raw materials in a seminar ‘Biodiversity Act 2002 and Rules 2004’ organised by the PHD Chambers of Commerce and Industries in the State capital on Friday.
Representatives of several industry bodies including Association of Mandideep Industries, Madhya Pradesh Association of Cotton Processors and Traders (MPACPT), Madhya Pradesh Small Scale Industries Organisation (MPSSIO) and others said that levy of
surcharge will adversely affect the industries retarding growth in the State.
They also emphasised that no such levy has been introduced in other States and therefore industries in the State should not be discriminated.
Speaking at the seminar, Kailash Agrawal of MPACPT said that in many industries including cotton processing the profit margin is below 1 per cent and therefore levying 2 per cent surcharge is impractical. “From where will we pay this surchargeIJ If the State biodiversity board will compel us to pay the surcharge despite this, it will become a terrorist board for industries,” he remarked.
Deepak Sharma of MPSSIO said that the biodiversity board should focus on protecting biodiversity instead of concerning itself with
collection of such surcharge. Even if the Board issues notification making it compulsory for companies to furnish the surcharge, it would not be able to realise it because in an election year the Government would not risk enraging business community, he said.
Addressing concerns expressed by the industry representatives, Member-Secretary of Madhya Pradesh Biodiversity Board said that the paying the surcharge is important towards fulfillment of a vital social responsibility of the industries using bio-resources as raw materials.
Notably, the matter of the surcharge has surfaced after the State Green Tribunal issued notices on June 6 to Western Coalfields limited (WCl), Coal India, National Biodiversity Committee, Union ministry of Environment and Forest and MP State Biodiversity Board for not sharing benefits from bio-resources with local bio-diversity management committee.
Under the Biodiversity Act, there is provision of benefit sharing under which any person or industry using bio-resources for commercial purposes have to provide the government a certain amount as notified by the state biodiversity boards.